RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 March 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070015842 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Mr. Dean L. Turnbull Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. Mark D. Manning Chairperson Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann Member Mr. Rowland C. Heflin Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration to change his narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he is still in the United States Army because the day he was released from the custody and control of the United States Army, he was given an opportunity to join the Washington State Army National Guard; therefore, his discharge for fraudulent enlistment was voided. 3. The applicant provides a copy of a letter addressed to the Office of the President of the United States of America, dated 12 November 2007; DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States); a letter to the Mayor of the City of Modesto, California, dated 16 October 2007; a newspaper article; a letter to Eastern Seaboard States, dated 5 July 2007; a letter to the Grand Jury Foreperson c/o Court Executive Office, San Mateo County, Redwood City, California, dated 2 July 2007; and a letter to San Mateo Police Department, San Mateo, California dated 25 June 2007. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20070001387, on 16 October 2007. 2. In the original decision the ABCMR found that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), Chapter 14, for misconduct – fraudulent entry. The applicant had several prior arrests before he enlisted in the Army. However, when he completed and signed his contract he indicated he had never been arrested or convicted. Therefore, the applicant's enlistment was voided and orders were issued which released him from the control of the Army. Since the applicant's enlistment was voided, he did not receive a character of service. 3. The applicant provided new argument which requires that his case be reconsidered by the ABCMR. 4. The new argument he submitted was addressed to the Office of the President of the United States of America; Army Discharge Review Board; Mayor of the City of Modesto, California; Eastern Seaboard States; Grand Jury Foreperson c/o Court Executive Office, San Mateo County, and San Mateo Police Department. These documents contain the applicant's views on the economy; world events; incidents in Modesto, San Mateo, and Redwood City, California; local and state governments; and a Congressman. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant requests reconsideration to change his narrative reason for separation. 2. Although the applicant states that his discharge for fraudulent entry was voided when he joined the Washington State Army National Guard, the applicant has submitted no evidence to support his contentions. In addition, there is no provision for a fraudulent entry discharge from the Regular Army to be voided as a result of an enlistment into the Army National Guard. 3. The applicant submitted new argument; however, his argument only addresses his views on the economy; world events; incidents in Modesto, San Mateo, and Redwood City, California; local and state governments; and a Congressman. It does not provide any evidence that would warrant a change to his narrative reason for separation. 4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement. Therefore, he is not entitled to correction to change his narrative reason for separation. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING __MDM__ __JCR__ __RCH__ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20070001387, dated 16 October 2007. ___Mark D. Manning__ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED YYYYMMDD TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.